Something doesn't make sense here. We all know that our clients have to fully verify income and have had to since 2007. In fact, to even use child support income we have to document receipt AND continuation for the next 3 years. How on Earth could he lie when it's all right there in front of the underwriter? If the underwriter doesn't have enough documentation they discount or eliminate it completely. This isn't the whole story, obviously.

We have to provide the divorce decree to prove they are entitled to receive it, what the amount is, and what the age of the child is. Then we have to provide 3 months of canceled checks or bank statements to show receipt of the income for the last 3 months. Then we have to prove that the income will continue for 3 years, which is where the divorce decree comes in again. Unless this guy supplied completely forged and fraudelent documents, this story is missing a lot of details to even sound plausible. To quote Hamlet, "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark..."